What about Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul?

“If you discovered a major institution of society absolutely devoted to reducing humans down to androids, would you say that was a significant problem? Would you admit that institution could radically alter life and send it careening in the wrong direction?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

This article isn’t about campaign issues or policy issues or who is qualified to lead. It’s about the presidential election season and who runs that show:

Big media.

Get used to it. Every few years in the US (and other countries), the television production teams swing into gear with their wall-to-wall series called:

“Let’s have our robots talk to the robot candidates.”

This is what is delivered, and this is what the audience expects, in the same way you expect to be served bad food every time you go to the same bad restaurant.

And in case you haven’t noticed, huge numbers of people keep going to bad restaurants.

Now, the robot presidential candidates may not have started out that way. Perhaps a few of them were genuinely passionate about this or that. But the show called “Let’s have our robots…” will fix that. By the time the actual debates are broadcast, the debates that count, all the candidates are blown dry and coiffed and powdered and reduced to a few minutes of spouting ghoulish empty generalities.

There’s no juice left. Brains have been shifted into neutral. Castrations have been performed. Any idiosyncrasy or sign of an actual individual present on stage in front of the lights has been rubbed away. You in your home, sitting in front of the box, could feel more life staring at a roll of toilet paper.

This, mind you, is all by design. The candidate’s advisors, the pollsters, the party hacks, the donors all contribute to the outcome. But the television networks, who devise the formats, bring on the moderators, arrange the podiums, light the stage, place the cameras, and construct a rolling image of “what the American people need” from their candidates are the producers. They synthesize and fabricate. They execute their android manipulations.

The media don’t just bury the truth inside of information. They obscure humans by making them over into psychological, mental, and spiritual eunuchs (like the elite television anchor is).

So let’s start with Rand Paul. What are the chances, if he somehow arrives at the final debates, that he can wreak havoc and disrupt the whole show?

Close to zero. He’s talking like a politician. Forget his ideas for the moment. He’s unwilling or unable to express how he really feels in a way that causes sudden and irreversible impact. He still seems to believe in the process. He may be on the wrong train with right ticket, but he won’t get off the train.

Bernie Sanders is a slightly more elusive case. He is attracting larger and larger crowds, and he is getting them up out of their seats. But Bernie is still committed to Washington DC because he’s been there for 150 years, and if you listen to him talk you can hear the ding-dong of programmatic politics.

Bernie has a fiery edge, but he’s a kind of a rebel Commissar. If he makes it to the final Primary debates, he’ll come across on television like a little walrus on a modest dose of meth.

He won’t tear the grotesque media format to tatters.

Understand this distinction. A candidate can make himself look like an exception to the rule, while still following the rules. Or he can torpedo the whole show and reveal it for the vicious farce it is.

Like it or not, the latter is what we need.

Think of it this way. The television networks erect a funnel. At the wide end, anybody with half an idea can get in. But as the funnel narrows and the process moves along to major coverage and the major debates, the survivors are scrubbed and sanitized and de-balled and shortened in terms of how much time they’re allotted and which execrable drone is interviewing them and moderating them—until at the end they’re a slice of Wonder Bread with a thin coat of mayo.

Busting a real move in this situation takes—and this may sound odd—indifference to the whole show. Serene indifference. That coupled with authentic passion. Then you can be in the moment. Then you can look around and expose the charade itself. Then you can let the audience know what, underneath it all, they already know. They’re watching a hideous cartoon.

They’re watching a police chief standing outside City Hall saying, “The vehicle was entered and controlled substances were recovered by officers. At this juncture, this is all we can report, because the investigation is ongoing.”

They’re watching a corporate spokesman standing in an office miles from the chemical explosion that killed 100 people saying, “We’re cooperating fully with authorities in the investigation. We are confident our tests of the product were correct and the product is safe for home use.”

“Oh, but who cares about the media. I’m voting for the candidate who’ll being us positive change. That’s all that counts.”

How has that been working out?

I don’t care how many bankers and CEOs and war hawks and CFR big shots and so on have been pulling candidates’ strings behind the scenes. The media show covers up the possibility of finding out what cheaters and liars and deceivers and lunatics these presidential politicians actually are.

Taking down that façade with a crash would shed some light on the scene—and the best people to do that are the candidates themselves; the candidates who can, who are able to.

Bernie? Rand? No.

Whether you love them or hate them, they don’t have what it takes.

For that, you need a candidate who runs against the media and knows how to create his own compelling and riveting show. And not just a tempest in a teacup, but a storm that reaches down into the repressed cesspool where millions of people live every day.

This presidential election isn’t itself going to produce a major change in American life. But exposing the television series that is the election campaign is a place to start.

Android television produces the show called Election, and then android voters vote for android candidates.

That’s what’s happening.

Breaking that pattern and formula is job one.

The old “who’s the best candidate” and “who is running to suck votes away from another candidate” are outmoded.

The one candidate—and there is only one—is NBC/CBS/CNN/FOX/ABC. That’s who needs to lose.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Post navigation

12 comments on “What about Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul?”

You are perfectly right, none of them has what it takes to shake their windows and rattle their walls.

I see only two persons who could do that: Trump and Ventura.

On August19, in an interview, Ventura was asked by Alex Jones if he was worried about the establishment going after Trump, like they did with Ross Perot when he was threatened by the Bush family. Ventura replied: “Yes,and that’s one of the reasons why I said that Trump needed me as his running mate for his own insurance. If they kill him, they will be stuck with me… and I’m worse”.

… and, in the end, will the grand political procession of bread and circuses have made any difference? Somewhere along history’s long and winding road we were persuaded to sacrifice our very identities and souls to that horned god of materialistic capitalism. With regard to our future, all bets are off.

I love it when the “experts” say, “Well the poor people tend to vote Republican even though they offer the worst deal [for them]….This is one of the enigmas of voting”. I swear to God, I have heard this sentiment more than once in full mainstream swing. If that’s not preprograming androids, I don’t know what is….!

In the latest Trump article you had, I pretty much figured you and Jeff Rense were just tired from all the fighting and jumped on the bandwagon. But after reading this, I’m reminded of the character Philip Seymour Hoffman played in “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1.” It seems you guys are looking at this from the television/news side of things more than anything else. And if you have never been in the business, it would look very different to the observer on the outside.

I still hold to my thoughts from the last Trump article, but I would like to request an article that maybe explains things more from a former reporter/news person perspective. Because it would seem like I’m not the only one with this problem, and I’m sure others would like to understand it from that perspective better.

The problem with trying to “beat the media” is that even if you win, they win. They win as long as there’s a show and people are watching. There’s still a show, only not the one they planned. Does it make the whole government thing look as absurd as it is? Sure. Does that mean I’m going to vote for Trump rather than a politician with a strong voting record and libertarian views I can believe in? Heck, no! I love your writing. Just can’t follow you down this path. The only real way for individuals to “beat the media” is to turn off our TV’s and stop reading mainstream internet news sources, stop buying stuff from people we don’t know or anything that has a commercial and create our own news. With that, I’m off to make some real food I bought from a local farm.
The best,
“That” Mom

And now let’s talk about the *complete farce* that your vote even counts in a presidential election. I witnessed for myself a “glitch” in the Diebold software that kept changing my candidate right in front of my face (at the time it was Ron Paul being switched over to McCain). How did I know it was a “glitch”? Because that’s what the volunteer pollworker told me it was. She said to simply reinsert the card — implying that hopefully next time the “glitch” would happen only after I’d walked away and couldn’t see the blatant and deliberate “malfunction.” It went smoothly after that and I felt like such a sucker for wasting my time, believing that the Diebold machines were there for anything other than helping people pretend they’re actually “voting.”

“The one candidate—and there is only one—is NBC/CBS/CNN/FOX/ABC. That’s who needs to lose.”
YES, and what is needed for that ?
You, you and you …
Us ALL, point à la ligne.
Don’t vote for a Slave Master but Vote by boycotting all the Matrix’ business, from news to bad food to whatever, noone’s hearing.

To put it simply the very existence of the Outsider or Novelty candidate is another means of validating the present system. The silver spoon Idiot the first Man of color the first Woman Next it will be the TM Guru from India. What is different is superficially taken as change because this is how androids evaluate reality. By the wheels of association alone infuses the system with hope thus maintaining the imaginary value of the status quo. Its also a game that those who know deep inside its a sham like to play in a passive Sado-masochist kind of way as this thrill and all the bad theatre give them a little jolt in lieu of the real life they might otherwise actually have a shred of attention for believing in themselves. How can you look for solutions and hope on their chessboard? Apparently they don’t realize they were born on someone else’s chessboard much less do they realize there is a chessmaster trying to take them out before they even realize they are on the board.